We aren't saying illegal immigration is just ok. What they're doing in Arizona isn't a good way to handle the problem. It sets a bad precident.

HOW SO? HAVE YOU READ THE AMENDED LAW IN ARIZONA? WHAT PART DO YOU OBJECT TO? WHAT BAD "PRECIDENT" [sic] DOES IT SET?

If those opposed to Arizona doing what the Federal Government is suppose to do - guard our borders - then perhaps they would have solutions to our border crisis. They don't! They take Arizona to task yet say nothing about Federal inaction.

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $
31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has
$7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens, You are part of the problem!

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has
$9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $
31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has
$7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens, You are part of the problem!

Jose Illegal looses job and is out of luck.
Joe Legal looses job gets socsec.
Jose I. lives somewhere and pays rent, his landlord pays prop tax.
Joe L. same (or owns home and writes off mortgage interest and prop tax).
Jose I. buys stuff like gas pays sales tax and pays for Police and services.
Joe L. same.
Jose I. digs trenches and picks Strawberries.
Joe L. would rather be on socsec.
Jose I. does not get tax write offs his employer pays nothing.
Joe L. writes off his kids, his car and more and really doesn't pay much tax at all since he is in a low income class. His employer pays a bunch.

Yeah, someone commits an arrestable offense or is arrested under suspicion of committing an arrestable offense, then has their immigration status checked is EXACTLY the same thing as seeing a Mexican doing nothing wrong on the street and demanding their "papers".

"Surveys of immigrants show that they actually come with the expectation that welfare and social service benefits will not be available to them. What's more, per capita, they actually use welfare benefits less than the native population. Studies show that only 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps. In comparison, 84% pay income tax and none of them file a return. Because so many of them pay into the tax and social security and Medicaid systems without being able to retrieve any of that money or benefits, the government actually makes a substantial profit on each illegal who comes here. This has resulted in a surplus in social security funds of more than $50 billion a year just from payments applied to fictional social security numbers. After factoring in services provided, on average during his time in the US, an illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The one negative tax impact is that they act to transfer money from the states who pay most of the services, especially education, to the federal government which gets most of the tax benefits.

On average, undocumented workers earn about $2 less per hour than documented workers in the same jobs, a difference which accurately represents the added risk and expense of hiring them.

"Surveys of immigrants show that they actually come with the expectation that welfare and social service benefits will not be available to them. What's more, per capita, they actually use welfare benefits less than the native population. Studies show that only 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps.

That being the case, I suggest a completely new policy. Let's allow more Mexican immigrants and let's start deporting Americans. At least those on welfare and food stamps.

Yeah, someone commits an arrestable offense or is arrested under suspicion of committing an arrestable offense, then has their immigration status checked is EXACTLY the same thing as seeing a Mexican doing nothing wrong on the street and demanding their "papers".

Yes, and if what you claimed were actually the case, then there might be some concern.

The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law,[1]:§ 3 and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official",[20] to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.[1]:§ 2 Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents;[1]:§ 3 a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code.

How about some real facts from you since you're the one who's claiming this?

I've noticed lately some of my liberal peers have stop posting so often as I have myself. When you realize that the right here is just making noise in an attempt to complain about Obama concerning anything you kind of get numb to constant downpour of desperate nothing.

In other words there's no point in talking to people like that.

They've stopped posting because some of them have (yet again) been banned or because they know their crumbling utopian dream has been far from realized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

There is nuances that the "blinded by hate" section does not understand:
1) a person enters the US legally but does not leave when the visa expires. US knows they are here.
2) a person enters the US legally, applies for a permanent or temporary visa is rejected and does not leave. US knows they are here. *
3) a person enters the US illegally for the purpose of illegal activity. Does not want US to know they are here.
4) a person enters the US illegally for the purpose of improving his/her life, becomes part of society and part of cheap labor force.
5) a person enters the US illegally to join his/her family who already lives here, becomes part of society and part of cheap labor force..

there is more ........

* 1 and 2 mostly applies to people who come by air, Europeans, Asians and such who do bring their education with them, which is in most cases superior to the education of US persons of comparable social status.

End of story.
Who is the easiest to deport?
Who do you want to deport?
Who do you want to stay?
What is the trigger that makes someone a person of the US? Papers?

People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: by entering without authorization or inspection, by staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry.[16] Their mode of violation breaks down as follows: If the suspect entered legally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as either a Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayer (4 to 5.5 million) or a Border Crossing Card Violator (250,000 to 500,000). If the suspect entered illegally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as having Evaded the Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol (6 to 7 million).[17]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Noah is very clear that he wants people who came here legally deported as well as the ones who came here illegally. I would hope we can retroactively illegalize anyone who has an illegal immigrant in their family history going back to 1776.

If you and Noah are such linguistic talent why do you constantly fall into my ever so obvious traps???

Trap = not calling bullshit the bullshit it happens to be? Interesting definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Keep dreaming!

"Surveys of immigrants show that they actually come with the expectation that welfare and social service benefits will not be available to them. What's more, per capita, they actually use welfare benefits less than the native population. Studies show that only 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps. In comparison, 84% pay income tax and none of them file a return. Because so many of them pay into the tax and social security and Medicaid systems without being able to retrieve any of that money or benefits, the government actually makes a substantial profit on each illegal who comes here. This has resulted in a surplus in social security funds of more than $50 billion a year just from payments applied to fictional social security numbers. After factoring in services provided, on average during his time in the US, an illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The one negative tax impact is that they act to transfer money from the states who pay most of the services, especially education, to the federal government which gets most of the tax benefits.

On average, undocumented workers earn about $2 less per hour than documented workers in the same jobs, a difference which accurately represents the added risk and expense of hiring them.

The thing that such data fails to note is that most services are not received directly by illegal immigrants but via their children. Their children are often American citizens and as such can apply for and receive services on behalf of their parents. So you are technically correct that food stamps for example are not received by illegal immigrants. If the illegal immigrant has three children who are American citizens though, that parent will receive the monies to which their children are entitled as citizens.

People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: by entering without authorization or inspection, by staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry.[16] Their mode of violation breaks down as follows: If the suspect entered legally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as either a Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayer (4 to 5.5 million) or a Border Crossing Card Violator (250,000 to 500,000). If the suspect entered illegally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as having Evaded the Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol (6 to 7 million).[17]

Trap = not calling bullshit the bullshit it happens to be? Interesting definition.

The thing that such data fails to note is that most services are not received directly by illegal immigrants but via their children. Their children are often American citizens and as such can apply for and receive services on behalf of their parents. So you are technically correct that food stamps for example are not received by illegal immigrants. If the illegal immigrant has three children who are American citizens though, that parent will receive the monies to which their children are entitled as citizens.

Quote:

They've stopped posting because some of them have (yet again) been banned or because they know their crumbling utopian dream has been far from realized.

I seem to remember someone getting banned awhile ago for a classless Ted Kennedy comment. So it's not really an exclusive club is it?

No they've stopped because they realize when the other side stops dealing with reality and is just reacting without thinking there's little point to a conversation. You can bring as many rightwing extremists in here as you want trumptman. Fill the forum with nothing but rightwing spam and the reality will remain the same. AI could become totally conservative but the right will still have egg on it's face for years to come. Why you say? because of where we are and the previous decade. You know? The lost decade.

Good luck on changing the world with your rhetoric.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Is it even possible to make a classy Ted Kennedy comment and still be speaking the truth? \

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

No they've stopped because they realize when the other side stops dealing with reality and is just reacting without thinking there's little point to a conversation.

Thanks for succinctly describing the conduct of a number of liberals/progressives/leftists on this board (not to mention many other places on the web.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

You know? The lost decade.

Looking for a "lost decade?" I suspect we are looking forward to one more than backward and it is a direct result of the knuckled-headed economic and governmental policies of the Obama administration (piled on top of the knuckled-headed economic and governmental policies of the Bush administration.)

Is it even possible to make a classy Ted Kennedy comment and still be speaking the truth? \

Thanks for succinctly describing the conduct of a number of liberals/progressives/leftists on this board (not to mention many other places on the web.)

Looking for a "lost decade?" I suspect we are looking forward to one more than backward and it is a direct result of the knuckled-headed economic and governmental policies of the Obama administration (piled on top of the knuckled-headed economic and governmental policies of the Bush administration.)

Quote:

Is it even possible to make a classy Ted Kennedy comment and still be speaking the truth?

If you have to ask the question then it's useless to explain to you and probably means you'd do the same. Like I've been trying to say. The more left leaning members here ( at least the one's not willing to play the Troll game ) have either left for greener pastures ( Applenova ) or have just left.

As for you going after almost every post I make in an attempt to get me to pay attention to you when I've put you on ignore is an illustration of why ignore is only partially effective. If you really want to lock horns everytime ( I don't even do that with SDW ) go right ahead. I myself don't have the time for this childish game.

As far as Obama goes I know you're probably seeing all of this as an opportunity for some Libertarian candidate or some other 3rd party venue. Well good luck with that.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

If you have to ask the question then it's useless to explain to you and probably means you'd do the same.

Sorry. We just disagree. I'm not sure there was anything really good about Teddy Kennedy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

As for you going after almost every post I make in an attempt to get me to pay attention to you when I've put you on ignore is an illustration of why ignore is only partially effective.

It's only partially effective if you choose to not ignore me. I'm sorry, I'm not ignoring you. I choose not use that function simply because there are time when I decide I want to comment on something any poster might post. I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. If you don't like it, tough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

If you really want to lock horns everytime ( I don't even do that with SDW ) go right ahead.

It has nothing to do with "locking horns." As I stated above: I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. You are free to continue ignoring me all you want. But this does not impose upon me an obligation to ignore you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I myself don't have the time for this childish game.

And yet, apparently, you do. But you're probably right, you have your own childish games to play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

As far as Obama goes I know you're probably seeing all of this as an opportunity for some Libertarian candidate or some other 3rd party venue.

Not really. I'm a realist. The American public is not likely to elect someone of that ilk to the Presidency. After all, this is a public dumb enough to elect Bush twice and Obama once. I don't have much confidence in them.

Sorry. We just disagree. I'm not sure there was anything really good about Teddy Kennedy.

It's only partially effective if you choose to not ignore me. I'm sorry, I'm not ignoring you. I choose not use that function simply because there are time when I decide I want to comment on something any poster might post. I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. If you don't like it, tough.

It has nothing to do with "locking horns." As I stated above: I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. You are free to continue ignoring me all you want. But this does not impose upon me an obligation to ignore you.

And yet, apparently, you do. But you're probably right, you have your own childish games to play.

Not really. I'm a realist. The American public is not likely to elect someone of that ilk to the Presidency. After all, this is a public dumb enough to elect Bush twice and Obama once. I don't have much confidence in them.

Quote:

Sorry. We just disagree. I'm not sure there was anything really good about Teddy Kennedy.

The guy had just died when trumpy made the comment. It doesn't matter if we agree or not. It was classless. You should know that also. A mature person would.

Quote:

It's only partially effective if you choose to not ignore me. I'm sorry, I'm not ignoring you. I choose not use that function simply because there are time when I decide I want to comment on something any poster might post. I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. If you don't like it, tough.

Uh no. Maybe this should be something that I should ask Lundy about. And MJ you've responded to practically every comment I've made even if it wasn't adressed to you. I don't do that ( I don't have the time for one thing which makes me wonder if you're even employed ).

Quote:

It has nothing to do with "locking horns." As I stated above: I don't feel the need to let some of your posts pass without comment just because you have chosen to ignore me. You are free to continue ignoring me all you want. But this does not impose upon me an obligation to ignore you.

Oh good! Then since there's really no rules to this you won't mind if I make the occasional reply even though you're still on ignore so I don't have to wade through all the BS.

Quote:

Not really. I'm a realist. The American public is not likely to elect someone of that ilk to the Presidency. After all, this is a public dumb enough to elect Bush twice and Obama once. I don't have much confidence in them

Well then you won't be surprised when Obama gets a second term will you?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

The guy had just died when trumpy made the comment. It doesn't matter if we agree or not. It was classless. You should know that also. A mature person would.

I have no idea what was said. As a human being I'm always saddened when another human being dies. That said, I don't really care for Teddy Kennedy and see him only as a rich, spoiled power-monger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Uh no. Maybe this should be something that I should ask Lundy about.

Go ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

And MJ you've responded to practically every comment I've made even if it wasn't adressed to you.

So what? Why do you care? You're ignoring me, remember?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I don't do that

Good for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

( I don't have the time for one thing which makes me wonder if you're even employed ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh good! Then since there's really no rules to this you won't mind if I make the occasional reply even though you're still on ignore so I don't have to wade through all the BS.

Why would I mind? You are free to reply to, respond to or comment on anything you like. It's better if these comments are useful and insightful, but I won't hold my breath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well then you won't be surprised when Obama gets a second term will you?

As a practical matter of politics, right now I think I would be. But there's a lot of time between now and then and we don't even have an idea of who would be running against him, so speculation (on anyone's part) at this point is basically just wild guess work. But, right now he's looking a lot like Carter.

I have no idea what was said. As a human being I'm always saddened when another human being dies. That said, I don't really care for Teddy Kennedy and see him only as a rich, spoiled power-monger.

Go ahead.

So what? Why do you care? You're ignoring me, remember?

Good for you.

Why would I mind? You are free to reply to, respond to or comment on anything you like. It's better if these comments are useful and insightful, but I won't hold my breath.

As a practical matter of politics, right now I think I would be. But there's a lot of time between now and then and we don't even have an idea of who would be running against him, so speculation (on anyone's part) at this point is basically just wild guess work. But, right now he's looking a lot like Carter.

Well I hate to burst your bubble ( I knew you'd say something like this ) but I've just watched several political talk shows with analysts who say the same thing I'm thinking. The Republicans still don't have any strong leaders or a new approach to our problems. And they still have the bad press from before when they were in charge. If the job numbers don't take a sharp dive or we have a double dip recession he stands a really good chance. He's not the first president to have problems in his first term and then bounce right back. Reagan and Clinton were two they mentioned. But we'll just have to see.
They didn't mention any 3rd parties.

Quote:

I have no idea what was said. As a human being I'm always saddened when another human being dies. That said, I don't really care for Teddy Kennedy and see him only as a rich, spoiled power-monger.

He said it on the day is the problem. There's better times to bring up negative views and especially when there are many who don't share them. Hey maybe there were other reasons for the ban also. I'm not the mod.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well I hate to burst your bubble ( I knew you'd say something like this ) but I've just watched several political talk shows with analysts who say the same thing I'm thinking.

So you found a bunch of people who agree with you, therefore I'm wrong. Whatever. It's more than two years away! As I said, just about anyone that anything speculates is wild guess work right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

The Republicans still don't have any strong leaders or a new approach to our problems.

From what I've seen at this time, I agree. Of course I don't really follow the Republican establishment so I have no idea (and I'm guessing you don't either) whether there is a candidate in the wings who we've never really heard of before. Remember we never really heard of Bill Clinton (or even Reagan or Carter) as a potential Presidential candidate until closer to the elections. In fact Clinton wasn't even considered a serious candidate once he was even heard of!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

And they still have the bad press from before when they were in charge.

And the Democrats have the bad press from when they were in charge...which is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

If the job numbers don't take a sharp dive or we have a double dip recession he stands a really good chance.

I disagree. He's going to need a sharp drop in unemployment to save him right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

He's not the first president to have problems in his first term and then bounce right back. Reagan and Clinton were two they mentioned. But we'll just have to see.

Right, but the economy hasn't bounced right back yet and there are already early indicators that the "double dip" is on the horizon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

They didn't mention any 3rd parties.

Of course they didn't. That's not surprising at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

He said it on the day is the problem. There's better times to bring up negative views and especially when there are many who don't share them. Hey maybe there were other reasons for the ban also. I'm not the mod.

So you found a bunch of people who agree with you, therefore I'm wrong. Whatever. It's more than two years away! As I said, just about anyone that anything speculates is wild guess work right now.

From what I've seen at this time, I agree. Of course I don't really follow the Republican establishment so I have no idea (and I'm guessing you don't either) whether there is a candidate in the wings who we've never really heard of before. Remember we never really heard of Bill Clinton (or even Reagan or Carter) as a potential Presidential candidate until closer to the elections. In fact Clinton wasn't even considered a serious candidate once he was even heard of!

And the Democrats have the bad press from when they were in charge...which is now.

I disagree. He's going to need a sharp drop in unemployment to save him right now.

Right, but the economy hasn't bounced right back yet and there are already early indicators that the "double dip" is on the horizon.

Of course they didn't. That's not surprising at all.

OK. Fine. I don't really care.

Quote:

So you found a bunch of people who agree with you, therefore I'm wrong. Whatever. It's more than two years away! As I said, just about anyone that anything speculates is wild guess work right now.

Except like so many times I've pointed things like this out on this forum it's their job to speculate so they are more qualified than you or I.

Quote:

And the Democrats have the bad press from when they were in charge...which is now.

Except there's a big difference. They were in charge whe a lot of this stuff started and they were in total charge for 6 out of 8 years vs. 1.5 for the democrats.

Quote:

I disagree. He's going to need a sharp drop in unemployment to save him right now.

So you disagree with the experts. What a surprise!

Quote:

Right, but the economy hasn't bounced right back yet and there are already early indicators that the "double dip" is on the horizon.

That's hardly a given.

Quote:

OK. Fine. I don't really care

I knew that already but you cared enough to comment on it.

Quote:

I have no idea what was said. As a human being I'm always saddened when another human being dies. That said, I don't really care for Teddy Kennedy and see him only as a rich, spoiled power-monger.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Except like so many times I've pointed things like this out on this forum it's their job to speculate so they are more qualified than you or I.

Maybe. I don't choose to delegate my thinking to others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Except there's a big difference. They were in charge whe a lot of this stuff started and they were in total charge for 6 out of 8 years vs. 1.5 for the democrats.

And, in that 1.5 years of total control (following 2 years of Congressional control) they've managed to do a pretty good job screwing things up. I think the American public is beginning to realize this now.

BTW, I don't really see this so much in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans as much as I see it as Democrats+Republicans (Republicrats or Democans if you like) vs. freedom and the American people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

So you disagree with the experts. What a surprise!

So you blindly accept the prognostications of the self-appointed "experts." What a surprise!

People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: by entering without authorization or inspection, by staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry.[16] Their mode of violation breaks down as follows: If the suspect entered legally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as either a “Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayer” (4 to 5.5 million) or a “Border Crossing Card Violator” (250,000 to 500,000). If the suspect entered illegally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as having “Evaded the Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol” (6 to 7 million).[17]

Exactly what I said: " ... came here legally" NOT .... "ARE HERE LEGALLY"
Thanks for again showing us your linguistic talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Trap = not calling bullshit the bullshit it happens to be? Interesting definition.

responding to my quote enters you into the class "blinded by hate" which is the trap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

The thing that such data fails to note is that most services are not received directly by illegal immigrants but via their children. Their children are often American citizens and as such can apply for and receive services on behalf of their parents. So you are technically correct that food stamps for example are not received by illegal immigrants. If the illegal immigrant has three children who are American citizens though, that parent will receive the monies to which their children are entitled as citizens.

The data also fails to note that many kids of immigrants have a lot more to proof and become scholars and study their rears off. That's why there's a lot of Asian and Indian doctors and many high level administrators have last names ending in "ez". Most speak 2 and 3 languages.
For some US native kids Grand Theft auto and Big Macs are "culture" and speaking one language is already pushing it.

And, in that 1.5 years of total control (following 2 years of Congressional control) they've managed to do a pretty good job screwing things up. I think the American public is beginning to realize this now.

BTW, I don't really see this so much in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans as much as I see it as Democrats+Republicans (Republicrats or Democans if you like) vs. freedom and the American people.

So you blindly accept the prognostications of the self-appointed "experts." What a surprise!

Exactly what I said: " ... came here legally" NOT .... "ARE HERE LEGALLY"
Thanks for again showing us your linguistic talent.

responding to my quote enters you into the class "blinded by hate" which is the trap.

The data also fails to note that many kids of immigrants have a lot more to proof and become scholars and study their rears off. That's why there's a lot of Asian and Indian doctors and many high level administrators have last names ending in "ez". Most speak 2 and 3 languages.
For some US native kids Grand Theft auto and Big Macs are "culture" and speaking one language is already pushing it.

_
_|_____
______|_______
______________|
______|
_____|

The lengths you go to in order to save face. Blinded by your own position and unable to see anyone elses. Amazing.

Oh, and nice middle finger there. Wonder if that counts as a personal attack?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Yes, and if what you claimed were actually the case, then there might be some concern.

If what I claimed is not actually the case, then please point me to the definition of "reasonable suspicion" as it pertains to this law. Please tell me where it is clear that "reasonable suspicion" does not include "looks Mexican". In absence of such clarification, there's nothing stopping an officer from doing exactly as I said in my post.

If what I claimed is not actually the case, then please point me to the definition of "reasonable suspicion" as it pertains to this law. Please tell me where it is clear that "reasonable suspicion" does not include "looks Mexican". In absence of such clarification, there's nothing stopping an officer from doing exactly as I said in my post.

15 guys speeding down the highway in a white van- none with identification seems like reasonable suspicion to me.

Doesn't your country require all citizens to carry 'papers' at all times? I am not well versed in Chinese law, but I imagine punishment for illegal trespassers in China is a bit more severe than a hot meal and deportation hearings.

Exactly what I said: " ... came here legally" NOT .... "ARE HERE LEGALLY"
Thanks for again showing us your linguistic talent.
responding to my quote enters you into the class "blinded by hate" which is the trap.

The data also fails to note that many kids of immigrants have a lot more to proof and become scholars and study their rears off. That's why there's a lot of Asian and Indian doctors and many high level administrators have last names ending in "ez". Most speak 2 and 3 languages.
For some US native kids Grand Theft auto and Big Macs are "culture" and speaking one language is already pushing it.

Actually when putting forward both conflicting claims and baseless accusations, you apparently cannot keep track of them all. Here is what you posted...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

We already know reading retention is not your strong point and you are a national socialist. I was asking questions and not only to you but to all participants. You have posted your opinion which is a far cry from the reality of immigration law.

Unfortunately for you 1 and 2 are not illegal immigrants. They are "visa overstays". However if they leave the US they may have problems coming back.

You have hereby included yourself in the "frame", nice going.

Not the end of story.

My info just proved that your assertion about 1 and 2, which you then logically leaped to declare to say anyone who didn't concur is racist... is complete and utter bullshit, for lack of a better phrase. I linked and quoted the info that showed they are in fact illegal.

So people wanting to include them or who aren't just trying to hide racist motivations per your twisted logic. They are just wanting the law followed all around.

Try again sweety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

If what I claimed is not actually the case, then please point me to the definition of "reasonable suspicion" as it pertains to this law. Please tell me where it is clear that "reasonable suspicion" does not include "looks Mexican". In absence of such clarification, there's nothing stopping an officer from doing exactly as I said in my post.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

and....

Quote:

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

I've quoted the actual law. I've quoted the definition and cases that provide precedent. Anyone who claims random stops can be made based merely on skin color is simply trying to mislead. We can get into why they would want to mislead on this matter, but the point is true that they are trying to mislead.

15 guys speeding down the highway in a white van- none with identification seems like reasonable suspicion to me.

Me too. Is that how it's defined in the Arizona law? If not, is it alright with you if some Sheriff's deputy thinks "looks Mexican" is reasonable suspicion?

Quote:

Doesn't your country require all citizens to carry 'papers' at all times? I am not well versed in Chinese law, but I imagine punishment for illegal trespassers in China is a bit more severe than a hot meal and deportation hearings.

My country is the USA. My de facto "country" of residence is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Yes you are required to carry either your passport or your HKID (Hong Kong Identity Card -- biometric since 2005) at all times, and you can be checked at random without cause. In 15 years, I never have been (reverse discrimination), but I see it happening to Chinese people on the street all the time. Just because I live here doesn't mean I condone the practice.

Reasonable Suspicion
and....
I've quoted the actual law. I've quoted the definition and cases that provide precedent. Anyone who claims random stops can be made based merely on skin color is simply trying to mislead. We can get into why they would want to mislead on this matter, but the point is true that they are trying to mislead.

Well since not having valid papers is now against the law, do you not see that there may be instances of suspicion about whether someone is breaking the law of not having valid papers?

I've quoted the actual law. I've quoted the definition and cases that provide precedent. Anyone who claims random stops can be made based merely on skin color is simply trying to mislead. We can get into why they would want to mislead on this matter, but the point is true that they are trying to mislead.

Trumpt,

Do you think a "means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed" will hold up to the Reasonable Suspicion court decisions? Perhaps there are other court decisions that are more applicable?

Section 5 of the Arizona law is about cracking down on the point of pickup for dayworkers. I've looked for similar Federal laws but have not been successful. Since you have stated that it is federal law that was written into the Arizona law perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Well since not having valid papers is now against the law, do you not see that there may be instances of suspicion about whether someone is breaking the law of not having valid papers?

It's not automatically against the law and being detained isn't the same thing as being arrested or imprisoned.

First by federal law, all people here in various legal capacities are supposed to carry their paperwork on them.

Second, it notes INVOLVEMENT in a crime, which shows action. The examples all show action. Driving on a suspended or expired license is a crime but it doesn't mean they pull you over to check. The link gave examples. You hold items to commit a crime, you run from a cop, another cop radios a description and you believe you have the one suspect, not every person is a suspect, etc.

This isn't about random stops.

Now the real problem of course is that this is so easy to get around for anyone who is legal. You get pulled over for speeding and show your license, of even if you don't have your license, you give who you are and you match the general profile and get a ticket for driving without you license.

If you are illegal, you now get pulled over, get a ticket for driving without your license, get charged for being in the state illegally and get handed over to ICE.

People who are decrying this law don't want that. They don't want enforcement of the law. They simply lie and say they do. They are like people who want peace when Bush is in office and now no longer care that Obama still has two wars, and still hasn't closed Gitmo but no longer care because of the D in the title. These people want OPEN borders which is not right for a number of reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilt

Trumpt,

Do you think a "means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed" will hold up to the Reasonable Suspicion court decisions? Perhaps there are other court decisions that are more applicable?

Section 5 of the Arizona law is about cracking down on the point of pickup for dayworkers. I've looked for similar Federal laws but have not been successful. Since you have stated that it is federal law that was written into the Arizona law perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Dayworkers is an entirely different subject. The point to remember is that the federal and state legal systems all have their own sets of everything. They have their own laws, courts and prisons. You can be found guilty of being a day laborer in Arizona state law, be sentenced in their courts and sent to their prisons. If the federal law says nothing about it, then it does nothing about it. Before this law, only the federal system actually declared it against the law to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona. So you could be arrested, charged, and sentenced in the federal system but not the state. This law merely copied the language related to being an illegal immigrant into the state law so that the state police, courts and prisons can undertake the same actions on this matter, but that doesn't mean the federal and state systems will undertake the same actions on ALL matters related to immigration.

Yeah, someone commits an arrestable offense or is arrested under suspicion of committing an arrestable offense, then has their immigration status checked is EXACTLY the same thing as seeing a Mexican doing nothing wrong on the street and demanding their "papers".

But that's not what the AZ law does, tonton.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Me too. Is that how it's defined in the Arizona law? If not, is it alright with you if some Sheriff's deputy thinks "looks Mexican" is reasonable suspicion?

My country is the USA. My de facto "country" of residence is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Yes you are required to carry either your passport or your HKID (Hong Kong Identity Card -- biometric since 2005) at all times, and you can be checked at random without cause. In 15 years, I never have been (reverse discrimination), but I see it happening to Chinese people on the street all the time. Just because I live here doesn't mean I condone the practice.

Most people in southern Arizona already 'look Mexican.' There are signs, however, such as type of dress, nervousness, carrying a Mexican National ID card, etc. They can also only ask if they are being questioned for another crime, not as a primary stop or investigation.

I figured you to be Chinese, what, being named after an Asian doll.
Yet you condemn Arizona, while your country of residence has far, far stricter law enforcement concerning identity of residents.
Carrying the Red Book no longer required?